About the zero sacks

#1
M

mtvols

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,126
Likes
1,641
#1
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgrind65, Devo182, VOLnMiami and 28 others
#2
#2
mtvols said:
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
Click to expand...
Even without blitzing we should have man handled their line. Not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Hound, OneVolNation, norriscraftbasser and 46 others
#3
#3
mtvols said:
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if we purposely didn't show too much on either defense or offense to not give Pitt too much to look at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, SweetasSoda, blouder1 and 9 others
#5
#5
mtvols said:
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
Click to expand...
They got the ball out quick by design. A lot of RB screens or WR quick outs. They only threw the ball down field maybe 4-5 times. We only blitzed maybe 2-3 times. I'm not worried about that at all. We were willing to give up those quick outs all game, and they were quite willing to take them. They also averaged all of 2.7 yards per attempt on the ground (which was still 0.7 more than Pittsburgh could manage against West Virginia, who wasn't even an elite run stopping team last year).
 
  • Like
Reactions: joshwa, davethevol, marcusluvsvols and 11 others
#8
#8
mtvols said:
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
Click to expand...

We blitzed early in the game. Didn't see much of the game--but certainly saw one blitz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murfvol1 and titansvolsfaninga
#10
#10
rdk4121 said:
They got the ball out quick by design. A lot of RB screens or WR quick outs. They only threw the ball down field maybe 4-5 times. We only blitzed maybe 2-3 times. I'm not worried about that at all. We were willing to give up those quick outs all game, and they were quite willing to take them. They also averaged all of 2.7 yards per attempt on the ground (which was still 0.7 more than Pittsburgh could manage against West Virginia, who wasn't even an elite run stopping team last year).
Click to expand...

Don’t come around here with your fancy stats and logic. They’ll call you a witch and burn you at the stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, marcusluvsvols, pimo1 and 7 others
#13
#13
onevol74 said:
I was more concerned about the offensive line not getting a push all night. Our RBs were getting contact at the line of scrimmage. I expected more in this the second year of development. I think our OL is soft.
Click to expand...

Did you see the run where the OL pushed Jabari Small along with several defenders for 5 yards and into the end zone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol Main, StarRaider, SockeyeVol and 16 others
#18
#18
Jaxon_Vol2017 said:
Even without blitzing we should have man handled their line. Not even close.
Click to expand...

What’s caused the INT? I’ll tell ya. It was pressure that forced the INT that led to the 1st TD.

Also how many passing plays was quick slants, wick outs and screens to the WR? It’s hard to sack a QB when he’s taking a 2 step drop and getting rid of the ball.
Also do you know how many times we hit the QB? If my memory is correct we had 7 QB hits/Hurries. Again this goes back to getting rid of the ball in 2-3 seconds.
I do think our defense has room to improve and will get better. We will know more about the team after next weeks games. I do expect the defense of play calling to expand next week against Pitt and will lead to more opportunities for sacks and turnovers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrapVol, illvol, pimo1 and 4 others
#19
#19
onevol74 said:
I was more concerned about the offensive line not getting a push all night. Our RBs were getting contact at the line of scrimmage. I expected more in this the second year of development. I think our OL is soft.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "all night".
We had over 200 yards rushing 🙄
Along with 350 passing.

They had struggled for a few series. Were noticeably better with Mincey at LT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrapVol, T2P_Priceless, DD4ME and 5 others
#20
#20
Jaxon_Vol2017 said:
Even without blitzing we should have man handled their line. Not even close.
Click to expand...
That's not really how it works, considering they have 5-6 blockers for our four guys going in. DEs were basically doubled all night and their RBs stayed in protection for an extra man. Lots of cut blocks from their TEs and RBs on passing plays to open those quick lanes.

DBs were a little soft but again, we blitzed maybe 3 times the whole game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrapVol, Vol in Buckeye Land, T2P_Priceless and 2 others
#21
#21
Small school QB making his first start of his career on the road against a power 5 program. There was no need to blitz or bring any extra pressure. Stop the run and make him throw the ball was the plan. It worked wonderfully. We have them everything underneath all game and swarmed to the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol in Buckeye Land, Coach_Z, marcusluvsvols and 3 others
#22
#22
Jauan't Some? said:
You mean the game where we gained 4.3 yards per rush attempt?
Click to expand...

And Wright and Small, who will receive the majority of the carries this year, averaged nearly 6 yards per carry between them. Sampson was the only one who looked flat, but it was his first collegiate game, so I won't fault him for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, VOLSanon, bpalmer28 and 2 others
#23
#23
Pass rush wasn’t terrible they was throwing screens and 5 yard hitch routes all game… only disappointment for me was 4 he just don’t have that lock down mentality… Hadden is the best corner on the team I hope Charles or turnage end up opposite of him in SEC play I root hard for Warren but he just doesn’t have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwilliams, swampfoxfan and VAVol85
#25
#25
mtvols said:
I know some will make a big deal out of us having no sacks vs. Ball State.

We played very vanilla on defense. I don’t recall us blitzing and Ball State was clearly using the short passing game to get the ball out quick. We also played a lot of players on defense.

We will see how the DL looks vs Pitt.
Click to expand...
Please...after 15 years of "we were vanilla", can we give that excuse a rest? That is what it is, an excuse as to why the D did not match expectations.....our front 4 should have been able to get sacks or, at a minimum, more TFLs.

They did look better on 3rd down though...I will give them that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvare, Doberman and OrangeTsar
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top